I just read a moment ago that this charity that I give to takes part in Stem Cell Processing. Does this necessarily change the philanthropic nature of this hospital/charity? I'm interested in hearing some viewpoints. (this may have already been a topic)

Christ is Born!

« Last Edit: January 03, 2008, 05:51:24 PM by JustinianPrima »

Logged

This poster was also registered under the username "macedonia74" and had been banned from OCnet under that name.

Most vaccines are derived from aborted fetal tissue, so while the vaccines today are not directly derived from abortions, they have it in their "lineage" so to speak.

St. Judes does tremendously good work. And at least to my mind, we can't throw the baby out with the bathwater when they do such great things. Although if there was a comparable organization that did the same work that St. Judes does, but is "better" ethically, I would help them instead.

I just read a moment ago that this charity that I give to takes part in Stem Cell Processing. Does this necessarily change the philanthropic nature of this hospital/charity? I'm interested in hearing some viewpoints. (this may have already been a topic)

Christ is Born!

It's sound medicine and scientific research, for them to do otherwise would be irresponsible and unethical. Sounds like all the reason more to suppor them.

What kind of stem cell processing are we talking about? Of the various types of stem cells currently being used (e.g., umbilical cord, embryonic, bone marrow, etc.), our hierarchs (IIRC) oppose only the processing of stem cells from human embryos.

our hierarchs (IIRC) oppose only the processing of stem cells from human embryos.

Speak for your own Bishop, I have yet to hear any such thing from either my Metropolitan, His Eminence Gerasimos of San Francisco or his His All-Holiness the Oecumenical Patriarch even as personal opinion, much less codified dogma.

Speak for your own Bishop, I have yet to hear any such thing from either my Metropolitan, His Eminence Gerasimos of San Francisco or his His All-Holiness the Oecumenical Patriarch even as personal opinion, much less codified dogma.

Good to hear! As I've said before, issues of science should be left to science, to allow religious leaders to focus on faith issues.

Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens

The vaccine will be manufactured using Crucell’s PER C6 cell line, which is derived from the retinal tissue of an 18 week gestation fetus, aborted because, according to Dr. Van Der Eb at a recent hearing with the FDA, “The women wanted to get rid of the fetus. …The father was not known and that was, in fact, the reason why the abortion was requested.”

Good to hear! As I've said before, issues of science should be left to science, to allow religious leaders to focus on faith issues.

But when issues of scientific research methods impinge on our call to revere and protect human life (i.e., embryonic stem cell research), is this not a faith issue on which our spiritual leaders have the responsibility to speak?

But when issues of scientific research methods impinge on our call to revere and protect human life (i.e., embryonic stem cell research), is this not a faith issue on which our spiritual leaders have the responsibility to speak?

There are a lot of shades of gray in this one. The embryos were created in a way that is not condoned by the church and are at this point just sitting around in storage. There are four options at this point:

1. Keep the embryos in long term cold storage indefinitely

2. Pull the plug on extra and unwanted embryos

3. Implant them in surrogate mothers (ignoring the logistical problems of finding such) - this process will kill more embryos than it will "save"

4. Use them for scientific research

At this point it is hard to see any one of those as the most ethical option.

But when issues of scientific research methods impinge on our call to revere and protect human life (i.e., embryonic stem cell research), is this not a faith issue on which our spiritual leaders have the responsibility to speak?

Not really, we'll call the church when we want to know if this cluster of cells should be baptized, other than that the Church just needs to keep away from the entire issue, which seems to be what most of our Bishops are doing at least.

This site has an agendum, as evidenced by their classification of "Fetal cell line" as opposed to "Ethical version." They do not directly state yet strongly imply that growing vaccines in human stem cells is unethical.

But when issues of scientific research methods impinge on our call to revere and protect human life (i.e., embryonic stem cell research), is this not a faith issue on which our spiritual leaders have the responsibility to speak?

I disagree with one word of this statement: "when." It has not been shown that stem cell research in any way destroys human life, and therefore this is not a faith issue. Religious leaders need not say a word about it, any more than they need to speak about nuclear fusion power.

Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens

I disagree with one word of this statement: "when." It has not been shown that stem cell research in any way destroys human life, and therefore this is not a faith issue. Religious leaders need not say a word about it, any more than they need to speak about nuclear fusion power.

I'm really not talking solely about the destruction of human life. I'm talking also about how we revere the human body as bearing the image of God even after its soul has departed and it is physically dead, the reverence that underlies our belief in the sanctity of relics and our general disdain for cremation, as vs. Orthodox burial. I guess the most relevant application of this question is the use of human cadavers for scientific research. Is such (mis?)use of the human body justifiable, even in the name of science? I personally don't know.

But seeing how embryonic stem cell research, IIRC, requires embryos already killed for other reasons, does not our Orthodox reverence for the sanctity of the human dead make this a faith issue? I believe it does.

I'm really not talking solely about the destruction of human life. I'm talking also about how we revere the human body as bearing the image of God even after its soul has departed and it is physically dead, the reverence that underlies our belief in the sanctity of relics and our general disdain for cremation, as vs. Orthodox burial. I guess the most relevant application of this question is the use of human cadavers for scientific research. Is such (mis?)use of the human body justifiable, even in the name of science? I personally don't know.

How could one even question whether or not research on the human dead is acceptable in this day and age. The development of modern medicine would have been impossible without cadavers and this medicine has one so much to alleviate real and tangible human suffering. Would it have been worth forcing millions into untold suffering to that the sancity of a corpse could be maintained? I submit that these cadavers were put to far better use than even the relics of the saints. This medical research is a good and honourable thing.

Quote

But seeing how embryonic stem cell research, IIRC, requires embryos already killed for other reasons, does not our Orthodox reverence for the sanctity of the human dead make this a faith issue? I believe it does.

Technically not, after the cell copies it self three or four times you could technically take a handful of cells and the embryo would easily compensate without any developmental problems. While evolution had problems with matters of genetic efficiency, it did quite well in the creating of redundant and hardy systems. Of course, until the technology comes along to somehow demonstrate the future intellectual or athletic potential of this embryo and it turns out to be some future Einstein, who's going to want it? The market for embryo adoption is very limited and yet there are countless embryos out there in stasis. If not used entirely for scientific research, they'll simply be discarded, which would be a shame considering the economic and biological resources required to create them. Further, if you are amongst the few who view these as human lives (which I do not) wouldn't it be unfortunate if the life was simply thrown into a dumpster rather than having the cells used for the good of humanity. Those are, ultimately, the only two options in the real world.

Is such (mis?)use of the human body justifiable, even in the name of science? I personally don't know.

Quite a question--or two. I don't think I could answer either of them: Is it proper use or misuse; and is it justifiable? I'm not one to say that ends justify the means, and there have indeed been some good results from such research. As to whether we can ethically say that the entire process is good or bad--I'm not enough of an expert in this research to be able to tell you.

I have believed, even as a Protestant, that intentions matter more than actions. That is to say, a sin committed with good intentions will harm someone less than a good deed done with selfish intentions.

So to the point, this is not an issue I would expect a bishop or priest to address, but if he does, I'll weigh his opinion on the matter. I do not think that this is important enough of an issue for a dogma, and I certainly would not feel obligated to agree with his opinion. To me, this is a scientific issue--not a political one, and not a religious one--and I'll gladly leave it up to the scientists.

Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens

Thank you for the links.This one was quite informative, actually. I never realized how vaccines are made, but it is truly remarkable. It's amazing that we can manipulate even disease-causing organisms for our benefit.Blog. Dismissed.This site has an agendum, as evidenced by their classification of "Fetal cell line" as opposed to "Ethical version." They do not directly state yet strongly imply that growing vaccines in human stem cells is unethical.I stopped reading after they compared vaccines to Soylent Green. Hogwash.

Conclusion: the initial experimentation on vaccine preparation may have been done with fetal tissue, but current vaccines are not prepared this way. One bad apple....

And you don't quite understand it. The vax made today may not be DIRECTLY derived from abortive tissue. But they are derived from the original vax that were. So it is still derived from abortive tissue, just many generations down the line. Read the blogs before you dismiss them.

And you don't quite understand it. The vax made today may not be DIRECTLY derived from abortive tissue. But they are derived from the original vax that were. So it is still derived from abortive tissue, just many generations down the line. Read the blogs before you dismiss them.

So don't use the vaccine and we'll let darwinian natural selection take its course.

So don't use the vaccine and we'll let darwinian natural selection take its course.

I never said I am against vaccination. I am merely refuting the claim that they are not derived from abortive fetal tissue. I am the product of my great grandparents, just as current vax are the product of the original vax that are derived from fetal tissue. It may be quite a bit back in the past but the relation is still there.

It is a difficult issue that is far from black and white.

And your response is the pinnacle of rude and uncharitable speech-akin to saying that my family and I should die.

Given how a good majority of my ancestors were wiped out by small pox, I have to say that is a rather large and sensitive nerve you hit.

And while the blog obviously does have an agenda it does explain why different vax have their various names with numbers next to them. Read before you dismiss. If you think it is absolutely fine to create a vax from abortive fetal tissue then think of it in terms of "human" and "non-human" tissue that was used to create the vax. But it is true that a great number of vax have been created from abortive procedures.

RA273The story of the Rubella vaccine is a bit more grim. It involved not one, but 28 abortions. Twenty-seven to isolate the virus, and then it was cultured in WI-38 (see above). The acronym RA273 means: R=Rubella, A=Abortus, 27=27th fetus tested, 3=3rd tissue explanted. From a Catholic Education Resource Center article:

Rubella is most dangerous for preborn infants, who have a 20 to 25 percent chance of contracting congenital rubella syndrome if their mothers catch rubella during the first trimester. Scientists at the Wistar Institute took advantage of the 1964-65 rubella epidemic to legally acquire fetal tissue from at least 27 so-called therapeutic abortions conducted on women at risk for rubella. Since the live virus was not detected until the 27th abortion, the preceding 26 abortions were apparently performed on perfectly healthy babies. By contrast, Japanese researchers obtained a live virus by swabbing the throat of an infected child.From an article in American Journal Diseases of Children (referenced here):

Explant cultures were made of the dissected organs of a particular fetus aborted because of rubella, the 27th in our series of fetuses aborted. This fetus was from a 25-year-old mother exposed to rubella 8 days after her last menstrual period. 16 days later she developed rubella. The fetus was surgically aborted 17 days after maternal illness and dissected immediately. Explants from several organs were cultured and successful cell growth was achieved from lung, skin, and kidney. It was then grown on WI-38. The new vaccine was tested on orphans in Philadelphia.

And if you were to actually look at the blog you would see that they site sources. This person merely put all the info in one place, rather than a myriad of websites to look at, you can go to one.

I guess the most relevant application of this question is the use of human cadavers for scientific research. Is such (mis?)use of the human body justifiable, even in the name of science? I personally don't know.

Having thought about this some more, I recognize a fundamental distinction between cadavers and human embryos. At least with a cadaver, the person whose body is now the cadaver very likely willed, while alive and of sound mind and body (hopefully), that his/her body be used for scientific research. In a way, this is like willful organ donation, which I have permitted to be done with me after I'm dead.

I will confess that the thought of fetal tissue being used for vaccinations is one of extreme emotional impact to me. We have lost 4 babies at various stages of pregnancy. I have and continue to mourn every single baby we lost. It would be intellectually dishonest of me to mourn my children because they were "wanted" but not the babies lost at the same stages merely because they were "not wanted." All life is sacred, or no life is sacred. The level of desire a person has to others doesn't determine their value.

There is a project called Snowflakes that allows people to donate unused fetilized eggs to couples like an adoption.http://www.embryoadoption.org/about/index.cfmI would much rather see that done to them than research. Harvest and fetilization is expensive.

I never said I am against vaccination. I am merely refuting the claim that they are not derived from abortive fetal tissue. I am the product of my great grandparents, just as current vax are the product of the original vax that are derived from fetal tissue. It may be quite a bit back in the past but the relation is still there.

It is a difficult issue that is far from black and white.

And your response is the pinnacle of rude and uncharitable speech-akin to saying that my family and I should die.

Given how a good majority of my ancestors were wiped out by small pox, I have to say that is a rather large and sensitive nerve you hit.

I assumed from your posts that you were spewing out more pro-life propaganda, if I am in error, my apologies. If I am not in error, then I stand by what I said. The vaccine is there, from my perspective the manner in which it was created is irrelevant; one can choose to either use or, based on some ethical principle they hold, not use it (fortunately we no longer generally need this particular vaccine, but the principle remains), if they don't this concession to ignorance or morality or whatever you want to call it is, practically speaking, devastating from a darwinian perspective. It's an ideology that nature will take care of by itself.

There is a project called Snowflakes that allows people to donate unused fetilized eggs to couples like an adoption.http://www.embryoadoption.org/about/index.cfmI would much rather see that done to them than research. Harvest and fetilization is expensive.

Go for it, I'll personally continue to support scientific research; it will do a lot more to benefit humanity than contributing to our problem of overpopulation.

Oh! You believe in overpopulation! Now I understand. There is no point discussing this with you further. I can not and never will believe that the world is overpopulated.

Well, I personally don't like people, so the concept of overpopulation is rather easy for me to sympathize with.

But, though I've heard some argue that the world is not overpopulated today, to say that it will never be is quite a stretch...you do understand that there are limited resources on this planet simply by virtue of there being limited space, don't you?

I will give you the same response I give people that tell me I am "part of the overpopulation problem" speech because I have three kids and want more; (mostly joking resonse)

If the world is overpopulated why don't we make human hunting legal?

or

If the world is overpopulated who should be the first people that are lined up to be sterilized?

I already had a tubal ligation nearly forced on me at 15 because I am american indian, and we indian girls just don't know how NOT TO get pregnant as a teenager, and we are all out there whooping it up . Sanger was a racist, and my race was at the top end of her list for extermination. Overpopulation arguments are merely a cover for a classist and racist view point. No one ever suggests that rich white people should have less children.

And as a side note. It was the American indian socialized medical system that tried really hard to have me sterlized at 15. I am 29, so it wasn't that long ago, and it was when the world was supposedly less racist.

I kept my really rude response to myself up there because I would never say it to anyone on here, and I don't really advocate suicide But usually it gets them to stop lecturing me at costco...YES COSTCO! I am lectured about overpopulation and my "sin" of it in a BULK buying warehouse!

I have to say the FUNNIEST instance of the overpopulation argument given to me was by a woman with a two year old who was pregnant. I pointed out how ironic it was and she said that it was just to replace her husband and herself. I responded; "Well then doesn't that mean that you and your husband should die right after you give birth then? I mean, you have replacements, and the world is still overpopulated right. Or is it only overpopulated with people that aren't from your gene pool?"

While I think any form of ethnic cleansing is a great tragedy and that many early proponents of birth control were racists is entirely irreverent as to whether overpopulation exists. And for someone living in a nation with a low population density and high GDP per capita, of course you don't believe in overpopulation. Contrast that with a very poor nation with a very high population density - take Pakistan or Western Africa - and where resources are growing more and more scarce. For much of the world overpopulation isn't a matter for suburban Americans to mull have many more kids will fit in their SUV, it is a matter of will the next child likely face starvation, malnutrition, disease, lack of even basic sanitation etc.

I will give you the same response I give people that tell me I am "part of the overpopulation problem" speech because I have three kids and want more; (mostly joking resonse)

If the world is overpopulated why don't we make human hunting legal?

We do, we just choose to call it war. Heck, my late grandfather even had a friend to took trophies. But they made him leave them in Japan, I guess some rule about importing game without a license.

Quote

If the world is overpopulated who should be the first people that are lined up to be sterilized?

I advocate the use of the IQ test for this purpose, those with IQ's under 70, certainly, IQ's 80-90 ,probably, IQ's 90-100, depends on how populated the territory is and how quickly we wish to decrease the population. In more drastic situations, go up from there.

Quote

I already had a tubal ligation nearly forced on me at 15 because I am american indian,

Well, if that was the only reason, then it was wrong. I do advocate a degree of forced sterilization and population control, but based on intelligence, not race.

Quote

and we indian girls just don't know how NOT TO get pregnant as a teenager, and we are all out there whooping it up .

Well, anyone who knows how to pop a pill should know how to not get pregnant, I have a hard time buying that argument.

Quote

Sanger was a racist, and my race was at the top end of her list for extermination.

Are we talking about the same Sanger? If you're talking about Margaret Sanger, she would have been dead before you were even born; but in any case, she was a great person and a visionary, may her ideas and causes come to the fruition she desired.

Quote

Overpopulation arguments are merely a cover for a classist and racist view point. No one ever suggests that rich white people should have less children.

I don't know that my approach is either racist or classist. If the rich white person somehow has a low IQ they would be just as subject to population control requirements as the poor black person with a similar IQ. I believe this would be a wonderful way to both prevent further overpopulation as well as guide the human race towards genetic and intellectual improvement.

Of course, on the flip side, honesty compels me to observe that those who are well-to-do tend not to have as many children as those who are poor and rich countries tend to have a birth rate less than the replacement level. So, in a way, it is a problem of the poor (though the few rich with low IQ's still shouldn't be reproducing at all for reasons relating entirely to genetics).

Ah, so you are more in line with the more Hitler-ish ideals of sterlization of the metal infirm. So then I imagine you think the euthanasia is a great idea too? So then, if you had a child that didn't have a high IQ you would sterlize them? I feel bad for your kids

Ah, so you are more in line with the more Hitler-ish ideals of sterlization of the metal infirm. So then I imagine you think the euthanasia is a great idea too? So then, if you had a child that didn't have a high IQ you would sterlize them? I feel bad for your kids

Don't let GiC get your goat. As far as GiC and kids... do you really think there is a woman out there that would procreate with him

Ah, so you are more in line with the more Hitler-ish ideals of sterlization of the metal infirm. So then I imagine you think the euthanasia is a great idea too?

To a degree, minus the racist component in any case. The mere fact that national socialists did something doesn't automatically imply it is wrong. You know, they also built roads and bridges, are we going to stop developing our infastructure because Hitler developed the autobahn system?

Quote

So then, if you had a child that didn't have a high IQ you would sterlize them? I feel bad for your kids

Can parents actually do that? In any case, if I produced offspring that was genetically disposed to lower intelligence, and it wasn't a random mutation as can often cause such things as mental retardation, it is quite likely to take measures to ensure that I didn't further reproduce. If I couldn't pass on a genetic predisposition towards intelligence, what's the point of my reproducing?

I am well aware that Hitler did some good things for his country. He couldn't have risen thru the ranks of goverment unless he did. But that doesn't negate the damage he did. When we draw lines of value they often keep moving. So that no one is valuable and everyone is expendable.

You can give your child an IQ test as early as the age of 4. There are some private schools up here that don't allow children into the school unless they score at least a 125, but preferance is given to those with an IQ above 135.

I would like to see you try and have your 4 year old sterilized (truly I wouldn't, but your rhetoric is easy to spout when you don't have children.)

I think mine is in the 120-130 range last time I checked. But I don't have an education beyond the 9th grade, and my GPA was .05 do I make the cut?

You most certainly do, intelligence is passed on regardless of the grades you got in school. You're probably the right person to have more children...hopefully to offset the genetic damage being done to the human race by those with IQ's below 100 who insist on procreating to the detriment of us all.

Now as to whether or not you should be rasing your children, that's a different question. j/k

Certain ethnicities do tend to have lower overall IQ numbers. I won't go thru the rates since I don't belive that those numbers mean anything. But it is true that there are "smarter" ethnicities in theory. So then, should we just wipe out the ethnicities that have a lower potential for high IQs?

You most certainly do, intelligence is passed on regardless of the grades you got in school. You're probably the right person to have more children...hopefully to offset the genetic damage being done to the human race by those with IQ's below 100 who insist on procreating to the detriment of us all.

Now as to whether or not you should be rasing your children, that's a different question. j/k

Ah, but the majority of people would see that I have a .05 GPA and assume I am an idiot.

I am well aware that Hitler did some good things for his country. He couldn't have risen thru the ranks of goverment unless he did.

He didn't really 'rise through the ranks', per se, but that's another issue.

Quote

But that doesn't negate the damage he did. When we draw lines of value they often keep moving. So that no one is valuable and everyone is expendable.

To a degree, everyone has an economic value that can be attached to them, likewise they have a genetic value that can be attached to them; and to one degree or another, everyone is expendable.

Quote

You can give your child an IQ test as early as the age of 4. There are some private schools up here that don't allow children into the school unless they score at least a 125, but preferance is given to those with an IQ above 135.

I would like to see you try and have your 4 year old sterilized (truly I wouldn't, but your rhetoric is easy to spout when you don't have children.)

Oh, I probably wouldn't be able to, I would want to sterilize one person just because they had the misfortunte of being related to me; furthermore, the sterilization of a single individual is highly unlikly to have any impact on the genetics of the human race and thus would be pointless. The sterilization of millions based on inferior intelligence, however, could have a profound impact to the betterment of the human race. But the policy only works if applied en masse.

Ah, but the majority of people would see that I have a .05 GPA and assume I am an idiot.

And that's why we'd use IQ tests instead of popular assumptions. The goal is to measure actual intelligence, which we are relatively certain is at least substantially influenced by genetics, rather than various measure of success which can be influenced as much by culture and psychology as genetics.

It has actually been proven that only 60% of IQ has to do with gentics, the rest is enviromental factors. So a child born to two parents with IQ's in the 140's could have an IQ of 140 at birth in theory and an IQ of 100 as an adult if they have poor parents/enviroment. And two parents with an IQ of 70 each could have a child with an IQ of 70 at birth and and IQ of 140 as an adult given the right enviroment and parents. Parenting has little to do with having a high IQ.

I think you'd be hard pressed to show that eliminating people with low IQs would actually benefit society. Why is every single heavily industrialized nation importing uneducated and unskilled labour en masse?

Certain ethnicities do tend to have lower overall IQ numbers. I won't go thru the rates since I don't belive that those numbers mean anything. But it is true that there are "smarter" ethnicities in theory. So then, should we just wipe out the ethnicities that have a lower potential for high IQs?

Well, that's one rather brutish approach that may help edge towards the goal of a more intelligent human race over time. But I would think that it would be much more effective to remove the less intelligent elements of all races from the gene pool. Granted, this will probably mean that more people from one race will be excluded than people from another race, but it's still not targeting specific races, it's establishing an objective criteria that has real and practical implications on human capibility, unlike the concept of race.

It has actually been proven that only 60% of IQ has to do with gentics, the rest is enviromental factors. So a child born to two parents with IQ's in the 140's could have an IQ of 140 at birth in theory and an IQ of 100 as an adult if they have poor parents/enviroment. And two parents with an IQ of 70 each could have a child with an IQ of 70 at birth and and IQ of 140 as an adult given the right enviroment and parents. Parenting has little to do with having a high IQ.

It's still a fairly good standard, a few people who should not reproduce for genetic reasons may slip through and a few who actually should may be stopped from doing so (mostly people on the borders only separated by 10 points or so anyway, which is a difference only minimally siginificant statistically speaking). But statistically speaking the numbers are relatively insignificant and the overall effect will be as desired. Granted, if we could develop a better method of determining genetic predisposition towards intelligence we should use that, but even with 40% variation the desired effect shouldn't be delayed by too much.

I think you'd be hard pressed to show that eliminating people with low IQs would actually benefit society. Why is every single heavily industrialized nation importing uneducated and unskilled labour en masse?

You're assuming that by the time the results of these policies are observable that people will still be required for unskilled labour; I suspect that computers will take over that role before genetics, even with selective breeding, and remove the less intelligent segments of society.

You're assuming that by the time the results of these policies are observable that people will still be required for unskilled labour; I suspect that computers will take over that role before genetics, even with selective breeding, and remove the less intelligent segments of society.

You know all those predictions about life in the 21st century made during the mid-20th century...

Still, the burden is on you to offer anything more than your own ramblings that the elimination of such people from our society will be beneficial. Something from a respected economist would suffice.

In many ways this is much like the immigration debate going on in Europe and the US, and real economist are almost all of the position that more unskilled workers are needed in the future, not less. In this week's economist...

I remember when I was pregnant with my oldest and still working, a co-worker declared how overpoulated the world was and how having children is selfish and evil because we are sapping the resources (mind you we worked at a preschool! ) And then he went on to say how he will likely never have children, but if he did, he would only have one. I recently found out that he is married to a woman with twins and they are expecting their third baby and want at least one more. Ah, how life and our viewpoints change

My husband nearly had a vasectomy when we first wed because we never wanted to have children. I decided we shouldn't because we might change out minds. Now 11 years, 6 pregnancies and 3 babies later we want to have another 3 children. Viewpoints based on thoughts outside a window often change once we step inside and look around.

I must go to bed now, I have class to teach in the morning. But you have been a real hoot Gic. I hope I know you in a few years so that I can bring this all back to your memory and show you how silly you once were. Good night, and God bless!

You know all those predictions about life in the 21st century made during the mid-20th century...

Still, the burden is on you to offer anything more than your own ramblings that the elimination of such people from our society will be beneficial. Something from a respected economist would suffice.

In many ways this is much like the immigration debate going on in Europe and the US, and real economist are almost all of the position that more unskilled workers are needed in the future, not less. In this week's economist...

Find me an economist that stays up to date with the newest journal publications in Artifiical Intelligence then I may be able to find you one who will advocate this point of view.

The computer scientists and roboticists behind Robocup have predicted that a team of robot soccer players should be able to defeat the world cup soccer winners by 2050. I personally don't know of any people better qualified to make this prediction. If indeed this comes to pass, this level of AI should easily be capable of preforming the various unskilled labour positions now exploited. Furthermore, it is to the advantage of the human race to replace humans in these positions with robots as this would increase the efficiency of our economy. I doubt you'll find may economists making these predictions as they tend to only deal with economic predictions within the next two decades, even if we started selective breeding today it would take a few generations for the results to be notable, probably closer to 2100. And while I'm not predicting any revolutinary technological developments by then (anti-gravity devices, ftl spacecraft, etc.) I do expect computers and AI to continue to evolve at a rate at least comprable to what we have seen over the past 70 years.

I remember when I was pregnant with my oldest and still working, a co-worker declared how overpoulated the world was and how having children is selfish and evil because we are sapping the resources (mind you we worked at a preschool! ) And then he went on to say how he will likely never have children, but if he did, he would only have one. I recently found out that he is married to a woman with twins and they are expecting their third baby and want at least one more. Ah, how life and our viewpoints change

My husband nearly had a vasectomy when we first wed because we never wanted to have children. I decided we shouldn't because we might change out minds. Now 11 years, 6 pregnancies and 3 babies later we want to have another 3 children. Viewpoints based on thoughts outside a window often change once we step inside and look around.

I must go to bed now, I have class to teach in the morning. But you have been a real hoot Gic. I hope I know you in a few years so that I can bring this all back to your memory and show you how silly you once were. Good night, and God bless!

I'm making statements about what I believe would be sound policy. As for my personal choices in life, who knows. But in the end, one person cannot make a substantial genetic impact on the human race, just as one person cannot 'reverse global warming' by buying a hybrid, to try to do so is purely ideological and ultimately pointless. Plus, if I were to be consistent with my idea of those with higher IQ's having more children and those with lower IQ's having fewer I would have several children, but I find it rather unlikely that this will happen.

I simply can't resist! You are so funny Gic! I have a new title for you "Orthodox calvanist" it is perfect for you! Since God couldn't possibly love those with lower IQ's if we take your logic to its conclusion, then we would only be loved if we were predestined to be loved. So then, only those with higher IQ's should be able to be "saved" by God! I think actually "Orhtodox hyper-calvinst" would work even better!

Although I don't agree with you I can come up with more criteria. Since a good number of truly heinous criminals also have a high IQ we should also use criminal behavior as a factor too. And everyone knows that once you commit a minor infraction that it means you are more able to commit more serious infractions. And if your parents are criminals you are more likely to become one also. So-I propose that all misdomeanors-crimes ect. should have the death penalty as the penalty.

Jaywalking-deathfraud-deathspitting on the sidewalk-deathmurder-death

That would weed out people really quick. And if we take away the whole "juvenile" system, we could kill kids before they can grow into heinous criminals in the future! That might even curb the graffiti!

I have a new title for you "Orthodox calvanist" it is perfect for you! Since God couldn't possibly love those with lower IQ's if we take your logic to its conclusion, then we would only be loved if we were predestined to be loved. So then, only those with higher IQ's should be able to be "saved" by God! I think actually "Orhtodox hyper-calvinst" would work even better!

Well, I can appreciate the logic of the calvinists, as I used to be one, but the concept of divine love forces me to a slightly different conclusion: I'm actually a universalist, I think everyone will be saved all of humanity, the angels, the demons, and even lucifer himself. Of course, I really don't see how any of this theology stuff applies to a good discussion on genetics...let's leave the who religion thing out of it. Perhaps a better title for me would be 'Orthodox Deist' <gasp>

Well, I can appreciate the logic of the calvinists, as I used to be one, but the concept of divine love forces me to a slightly different conclusion: I'm actually a universalist, I think everyone will be saved all of humanity, the angels, the demons, and even lucifer himself. Of course, I really don't see how any of this theology stuff applies to a good discussion on genetics...let's leave the who religion thing out of it. Perhaps a better title for me would be 'Orthodox Deist' <gasp>

Ah, but you belive certain people can have the right to live and others can not. So that would mean that they don't deserve protection, ergo they don't deserve to be "saved." Everything in our worldview can be tracked back to our view of humanity thru the eyes of God.

Although I don't agree with you I can come up with more criteria. Since a good number of truly heinous criminals also have a high IQ we should also use criminal behavior as a factor too. And everyone knows that once you commit a minor infraction that it means you are more able to commit more serious infractions. And if your parents are criminals you are more likely to become one also. So-I propose that all misdomeanors-crimes ect. should have the death penalty as the penalty.

Jaywalking-deathfraud-deathspitting on the sidewalk-deathmurder-death

That would weed out people really quick. And if we take away the whole "juvenile" system, we could kill kids before they can grow into heinous criminals in the future! That might even curb the graffiti!

Nah, I'd rather have a society of intelligent criminal than stupid slaves. But I've always been a bit of a non-conformist, though I'm sure there's also some genetic inclination towards that belief as well (I did mention I was a genetic-determinist didn't I).

Alright, then here is another; health. If mommy was obese, you are more likely to be obese and as such you are unhealthy and a drain on society as much as a person with low IQ and income. So anyone with parents that have had certain cancers, and other illnesses that have a genetic component should be thus eliminated or sterlized.

Ah, but you belive certain people can have the right to live and others can not. So that would mean that they don't deserve protection, ergo they don't deserve to be "saved." Everything in our worldview can be tracked back to our view of humanity thru the eyes of God.

Hey, I'm not arguing the execution of anyone, I'm simply discussing the restriction of reproduction. I also tend towards libertarianism, believe it or not; but I'd much rather see government regulation of reproduction than of driving, gun ownership, etc...but I digress and start to descend into politics so I'll leave it at that.

As for whether or not they should be 'saved', I'm generally careful not to mix my politics/sociology/science/etc. with my metaphysics, they are two different realms and the twain should never meet.

Nah, I'd rather have a society of intelligent criminal than stupid slaves. But I've always been a bit of a non-conformist, though I'm sure there's also some genetic inclination towards that belief as well (I did mention I was a genetic-determinist didn't I).

Although that doesn't really track. A criminal will only commit crimes and damage society whereas a person with a low IQ that doesn't commit criminal acts can be utilized for society at large, a criminal is merely in it for themselves. A sociopath can't be counted on to help anyone but themselves. And a world of sociopaths wouldn't have anyone in it for long.

Alright, then here is another; health. If mommy was obese, you are more likely to be obese and as such you are unhealthy and a drain on society as much as a person with low IQ and income. So anyone with parents that have had certain cancers, and other illnesses that have a genetic component should be thus eliminated or sterlized.

You certainly make a good point there, thought it may have been a better point in the 20's than it is today; medicine seems likely to be able to correct these problems long before breeding could eliminate them so I tend not to view them as such great issues. I'm sure that we'll also be able to effect intelligence through biology and cybernetics someday as well, however since many of the brain's pathways are wired during gestation this will be a much greater challenge, the improvement of intelligence is one area where selective breeding can be a significan influence. Others may be such things as athleticism, but I personally view intelligence as the most important in this day and age.

Hey, I'm not arguing the execution of anyone, I'm simply discussing the restriction of reproduction. I also tend towards libertarianism, believe it or not; but I'd much rather see government regulation of reproduction than of driving, gun ownership, etc...but I digress and start to descend into politics so I'll leave it at that.

As for whether or not they should be 'saved', I'm generally careful not to mix my politics/sociology/science/etc. with my metaphysics, they are two different realms and the twain should never meet.

By manging reproduction you automatically restrict life. So while you may not be killing a person, you are preventing them from coming into being, which is merely cutting the person off at the pass so to speak. If your mother was sterlized before you were born, you wouldn't be here. So while the sterlization of your mother wouldn't directly kill you, it would prevent you from living, ergo it kills you by not allowing you to exist. For example I kill mold in my bathroom by keeping it clean. By preventing something from forming I kill it.

Although that doesn't really track. A criminal will only commit crimes and damage society whereas a person with a low IQ that doesn't commit criminal acts can be utilized for society at large, a criminal is merely in it for themselves. A sociopath can't be counted on to help anyone but themselves.

Ultimatley I'm more concerned with the improvement of the genetics of the species than benefiting society, never been a huge fan of society and conformity, per se.

Quote

And a world of sociopaths wouldn't have anyone in it for long.

Eh, natural selection will take care of that before long. How many seriel killers do you know of that procreate?

What about loss of brain function as an adult? My father lost half his brain as a teenager, I am sure his IQ was effected. So since he can't have a high IQ I never should have been born. He lost the thinking and reasoning side, so his ability to really be "intelligent" was diminished. So by your logic they should have removed his sex organs at the same time as removing the crushed portion of his brain.

By manging reproduction you automatically restrict life. So while you may not be killing a person, you are preventing them from coming into being, which is merely cutting the person off at the pass so to speak. If your mother was sterlized before you were born, you wouldn't be here.

Well, I guess everyone can have their dreams. But for better or worse the world's stuck with me.

Quote

So while the sterlization of your mother wouldn't directly kill you, it would prevent you from living, ergo it kills you by not allowing you to exist. For example I kill mold in my bathroom by keeping it clean. By preventing something from forming I kill it.

Wow, talking about taking the pro-life movement to a while new level: protection of life before it's even conceived. Arn't we getting pretty close to the concept of the pre-existence of souls here? And I'm generally the one who gets accused of being an Origenist.

What about loss of brain function as an adult? My father lost half his brain as a teenager, I am sure his IQ was effected. So since he can't have a high IQ I never should have been born. He lost the thinking and reasoning side, so his ability to really be "intelligent" was diminished. So by your logic they should have removed his sex organs at the same time as removing the crushed portion of his brain.

The DNA in the cell is still the same and that's what really matters, not the practical capacity of the person...as long as he could pass the IQ test before that I see no reason why he shouldn't be able to reproduce.

Of course, my mother would have probably failed the IQ test, or at least come very close to doing so, it's only by virtue of my father's genes that I sneaked above the line I have set. Then again, we might all be better off if he had mated with a more intelligent person and have created a more intelligent offspring than I.

Eh, natural selection will take care of that before long. How many seriel killers do you know of that procreate?

A good number of serial killers also rape earlier on in their "careers" and if they don't use protection they will procreate. And sexual abusers pass on the proclivity to sexually abuse. So if you were molested, you are more likely to molest others. So then by your logic about IQ used on criminality we should automatically label all victims of sexual and violent crimes as criminals themselves since they will have greater proclivities to offend.

The DNA in the cell is still the same and that's what really matters, not the practical capacity of the person...as long as he could pass the IQ test before that I see no reason why he shouldn't be able to reproduce.

Of course, my mother would have probably failed the IQ test, or at least come very close to doing so, it's only by virtue of my father's genes that I sneaked above the line I have set. Then again, we might all be better off if he had mated with a more intelligent person and have created a more intelligent offspring than I.

He likely never would have passed an IQ test after the accident. In all likelihood he would have maybe been in the 90's, on a good day. But since it occured at a important developmental point neurologically, we will never know.

And since as a teen he damaged his brain, and he would have to have the IQ test before having children, and my brothers and I were not concieved until he was about 30, we would not be here, by your logic that is...

A good number of serial killers also rape earlier on in their "careers" and if they don't use protection they will procreate.

Thank God for abortion.

Quote

And sexual abusers pass on the proclivity to sexually abuse. So if you were molested, you are more likely to molest others. So then by your logic about IQ used on criminality we should automatically label all victims of sexual and violent crimes as criminals themselves since they will have greater proclivities to offend.

Perhaps this is another group that should be excluded from reproduction or at least we could set their intellectual standards higher for reproduction. Without a tendency of sexual abuse say a cutoff of 100 IQ, with the tendency perhaps a cutoff of 150, thus we tend to remove this group through genetic drift while still allowing those who are geniuses to contribute their intelligence to the future of the human race; a cost-benefit approach, if you will. Perhaps we can take the various factors and create a computer algorithm to determine who can and cannot reproduce and how many children a given couple can have based on research into genetics.

He likely never would have passed an IQ test after the accident. In all likelihood he would have maybe been in the 90's, on a good day. But since it occured at a important developmental point neurologically, we will never know.

Well, as you mentioned before, the test can be given in early childhood.

No, and that's the flaw in the system, perhaps some day we can determine how to test IQ from DNA, but by then we could probably just genetically engineer the fertilized egg to meet our intelligence specifications and eliminate the need for all of this.

Of course, while you don't test DNA for intelligence, the DNA is ultimately all that matters, it's what's passed on and becomes the foundation of future offspring.

Well, as you mentioned before, the test can be given in early childhood.

IQ is not something that is constant from early childhood into adulthood. It changes, grows, diminishes ect. Some of the kids with the highest IQ's that I taught in ECE were the biggest idiots in terms of practical knowledge. My brother has an IQ in the high 130's and if he didn't have others around to remind him about practical things he would be dead by now. Walking into traffic without looking, placing a pan on the burner and leaving it....in terms of practical knowledge, IQ tests are completely useless.

Then all people that hurt animals should be factored in too, since the worst of murderers start out by commiting violence against animals.

But by the time they procreate we can generally see whether or not they they are actually going to harm people as well. But until a certain age perhaps we could factor into our algorithms, for every animal you are caught torturing IQ requirements for reproduction go up by 5 points until you are 30 then we can observe based on your conduct towards other humans. Of course, if you do this (or even kill people) and are not caught, that tends to point towards intelligence so no harm is done by the fact that we can't factor this into our algorithm.

Then to take your argument further, and to take up your "joke" on the previous page, there should be people that are only deemed OK for breeding, but not for rearing children. High IQ's don't mean good parenting skills.

IQ is not something that is constant from early childhood into adulthood. It changes, grows, diminishes ect. Some of the kids with the highest IQ's that I taught in ECE were the biggest idiots in terms of practical knowledge. My brother has an IQ in the high 130's and if he didn't have others around to remind him about practical things he would be dead by now. Walking into traffic without looking, placing a pan on the burner and leaving it....in terms of practical knowledge, IQ tests are completely useless.

We don't have to worry about those details, natural selection will take care of that.

No, DNA is not the only thing that matters. We established before, it is only a 60% piece of the pie.

That's the 60% we can easily effect through policies on reproduction, to take care of the other 40% would require intervention into the day to day raising of a child and not even I am willing to go that far. If we take care of the biological part hopefully the evolution of our culture will take care of the other 40%, though I do think that greater access to educational resources is a good first step in the cultural direction (e.g. free tertiary education).

Natural selection has been proven completely unreliable. It simply does not work. That whole "birds" argument with the changing beaks is all based on faulty study and research. Once the adaptation to the beak is unnecessary the beak reverts to its former state. If natural selection truly worked then the changes within a species wouldn't be so cyclical.

That's the 60% we can easily effect through policies on reproduction, to take care of the other 40% would require intervention into the day to day raising of a child and not even I am willing to go that far. If we take care of the biological part hopefully the evolution of our culture will take care of the other 40%, though I do think that greater access to educational resources is a good first step in the cultural direction (e.g. free tertiary education).

If you want to go down a road you need to take it to its logical conclusion, otherwise it isn't a theory worth pursuing. You can be "half pregnant" afterall.

And if education was a factor then we would see an increase in IQ's since the advent of standardized education. But the reality is that standardized education has hurt our young minds more than it has helped them.

Then to take your argument further, and to take up your "joke" on the previous page, there should be people that are only deemed OK for breeding, but not for rearing children. High IQ's don't mean good parenting skills.

Quite possibly, but while I think the government can manage to impliment an objective scientific principle as policy, with well determined standards; I don't quite trust them for the subjective evaluation of who they believe to be a good parent and who might not be a good parent, that starts to encroach on issues related to freedom of conscious wheras an objectively designed eugenics programme does not.

Quite possibly, but while I think the government can manage to impliment an objective scientific principle as policy, with well determined standards; I don't quite trust them for the subjective evaluation of who they believe to be a good parent and who might not be a good parent, that starts to encroach on issues related to freedom of conscious wheras an objectively designed eugenics programme does not.

Eugenics doesn't encroach on freedom as long as you are not the one being picked as "unworthy." And there would be a very good scientific method to determine "good parenting," I am pretty sure it would NOT include the belief in any sort of "higher being" since that can not be proved scientifically.

Natural selection has been proven completely unreliable. It simply does not work. That whole "birds" argument with the changing beaks is all based on faulty study and research. Once the adaptation to the beak is unnecessary the beak reverts to its former state. If natural selection truly worked then the changes within a species wouldn't be so cyclical.

But much of the genetic information from the previous state is still stored in the genome, if it some how becomes more beneficial in the future due to a changing enviroment it's far from impossible that it will again become dominate.

One would find all the children with high IQ's and study them. Then find the commonalities amongest the families that raised/birthed the higher IQ children and implement that as the standard of parenting. But that would ALSO mean that if the commonality was that each child was tied to as desk with a book and beaten with a cane, that we would have to make that standard practice too.

If you want to go down a road you need to take it to its logical conclusion, otherwise it isn't a theory worth pursuing. You can be "half pregnant" afterall.

And if education was a factor then we would see an increase in IQ's since the advent of standardized education. But the reality is that standardized education has hurt our young minds more than it has helped them.

You're assuming that standardized education was somehow beneficial, I tend to disagree with an assumption.

But I think that while the increased offering of education may not be directly beneficial to the overall improvement of intelligent it does serve the purpose of social engineering, those who are more highly educated are more likely to pass on an intellecutal cuture that will be beneficial to the intelligence of their offspring.

But much of the genetic information from the previous state is still stored in the genome, if it some how becomes more beneficial in the future due to a changing enviroment it's far from impossible that it will again become dominate.

But the issue is dominance of a certain characteristic in the birds/beaks. If the birds with the big beaks all died because they needed small beaks then it would only be a recessive gene, a gene that "acts" only on occasion. So then there would be more deaths each time the characteristic was needed and the population would decline, not grow or remain the same.

may not be directly beneficial to the overall improvement of intelligent it does serve the purpose of social engineering, those who are more highly educated are more likely to pass on an intellecutal cuture that will be beneficial to the intelligence of their offspring.

That can't be proven even a mite. In fact, a great number of "geniuses" were undereducated and considered complete dolts up until adulthood.

Eugenics doesn't encroach on freedom as long as you are not the one being picked as "unworthy."

It encroaches on reproductive freedom to a degree (but not as forcing it on anyone, merely by denying it to some), but it doesn't encroach on freedoms relating to what one does with one's own person it only restricts what you can do to other persons (i.e. potential offspring), so I have less of a problem with it from that perspective.

Quote

And there would be a very good scientific method to determine "good parenting," I am pretty sure it would NOT include the belief in any sort of "higher being" since that can not be proved scientifically.

Yet, some who grow up with parents who do believe in higher beings end up as perfectly good atheists, so obviously it's a bit more complex and there's a bit more too it, which is why I don't trust the government to be able to sort out these complexities.

It encroaches on reproductive freedom to a degree (but not as forcing it on anyone, merely by denying it to some), but it doesn't encroach on freedoms relating to what one does with one's own person it only restricts what you can do to other persons (i.e. potential offspring), so I have less of a problem with it from that perspective.

Denying/Forcing, no matter how you dance around the issue it is force.

If I deny my child food and don't allow them to get it for themselves I am forcing them not to eat.

But the issue is dominance of a certain characteristic in the birds/beaks. If the birds with the big beaks all died because they needed small beaks then it would only be a recessive gene, a gene that "acts" only on occasion. So then there would be more deaths each time the characteristic was needed and the population would decline, not grow or remain the same.

Not necessarily, if the dominate gene become disadventageous it will simply cease to propagate itself as effectively, initially there may be a decline in population as those with the dominate gene die off, but those without it will start to take over, they may have a few offspring with that gene, but they too will die and not substantially affect the gene pool, over time due to natural selection those with the dominate gene will become eliminated and those with the recessive gene will predominate the species, making it the norm for the species.

Or do you believe that people will take the IQ tests and other criteria and then readily submit to sterlization?

There are probably better approaches than forcing such people to be sterilized, such as heavy financial penalties. A tax system on non-moslems effectively converted the overwhelming majority of those who lived in the lands of the Roman Empire conquered by Islam to the Mohammedan religion, the power of economics cannot be underestimated.

Not necessarily, if the dominate gene become disadventageous it will simply cease to propagate itself as effectively, initially there may be a decline in population as those with the dominate gene die off, but those without it will start to take over, they may have a few offspring with that gene, but they too will die and not substantially affect the gene pool, over time due to natural selection those with the dominate gene will become eliminated and those with the recessive gene will predominate the species, making it the norm for the species.

It couldn't keep up quickly enough. The beak changes were in a very short space of time (I don't remember the exact figure, but it was a short space of time) So then, if the need was for a short thick beak and natural selection took place then all the birds with a long thin beak would die and the short/thick beaked birds would have a recessive genve for long/thin beaks. Then when the birds need the long/thin beak then only the birds that have the recessive gene activated in their offspring would survive. But recessive genes don't turn off and on en masse. So the die off would be so tremendous that they would be a severe population surge and drop over and over. And that is NOT what occured.

There are probably better approaches than forcing such people to be sterilized, such as heavy financial penalties. A tax system on non-moslems effectively converted the overwhelming majority of those who lived in the lands of the Roman Empire conquered by Islam to the Mohammedan religion, the power of economics cannot be underestimated.

Ah, but there is also the moving factor. If you can't have children in one country more to another. If your systems was to go worldwide then you would have to round up and force sterilization on those with undesireable characteristics. And you can't force anyone to pay finacial penalties. People with lower IQ's would still reproduce, and then the system wouldn't work.

It couldn't keep up quickly enough. The beak changes were in a very short space of time (I don't remember the exact figure, but it was a short space of time) So then, if the need was for a short thick beak and natural selection took place then all the birds with a long thin beak would die and the short/thick beaked birds would have a recessive genve for long/thin beaks. Then when the birds need the long/thin beak then only the birds that have the recessive gene activated in their offspring would survive. But recessive genes don't turn off and on en masse. So the die off would be so tremendous that they would be a severe population surge and drop over and over. And that is NOT what occured.

I doubt the situation was that dire, it was simply that those with shorter beaks were more adventageous, thus they were the ones who tended to survive and tended to dominate the gene pool. It may very well have happened in a short period of time, but for a minor change like that a short period of time is all that is needed. Consider today the presence of white people, the pigment producing proteins are dominate yet in a relatively short period of time in certain populations the non-pigment producing proteins came to be predominate. Now I do not know if this lack of pigment, in and of itself, was somehow evolutionarily beneficial or if it was an accidental part of a set of alleles beneficial to survival in the different enviroments to the north, but in either case it, though a recessive trait, came to be predominate in a very short period of time.

Ah, but there is also the moving factor. If you can't have children in one country more to another. If your systems was to go worldwide then you would have to round up and force sterilization on those with undesireable characteristics.

It would make the system take a bit longer (though probably not much, immigration only accounts for a very small percentage of our population), but they would be absorbed into the population and the system; the negative effects would soon be negated.

Quote

And you can't force anyone to pay finacial penalties. People with lower IQ's would still reproduce, and then the system wouldn't work.

You can't? could have fooled me; so how exactly can I get out of my taxes? I'm really interested in this one.

My parents haven't paid their taxes in years. You move regularly and don't update your address. Then other than income tax, you pay nothing. My aforementioned father didn't pay his child support ever to my mom. He would work a job for a month, make enough money to get by and quit before wage garnishment could kick it. The goverment can't be all omnipresent and omniscent. Or you get a dummy SS# and use that instead when you are working, it is all too easy to hide your identity.

And I know I for one would give money to anyone on the run from forced sterilization. Heck, the Nazi's had a support network to help them escape from justice. I imagine the help for people being forced into sterlization would be even bigger. And the Catholic church would be involved in it too.

My parents haven't paid their taxes in years. You move regularly and don't update your address. Then other than income tax, you pay nothing. My aforementioned father didn't pay his child support ever to my mom. He would work a job for a month, make enough money to get by and quit before wage garnishment could kick it. The goverment can't be all omnipresent and omniscent. Or you get a dummy SS# and use that instead when you are working, it is all too easy to hide your identity.

And I know I for one would give money to anyone on the run from forced sterilization. Heck, the Nazi's had a support network to help them escape from justice. I imagine the help for people being forced into sterlization would be even bigger. And the Catholic church would be involved in it too.

Well, I guess the few who are willing to live like that can escape the financial implications for a time, at least until the IRS catches up with them. Of course, I'm not suggesting forced sterilization insofar as we arrest people and sterilize them by force. Rather, I believe that we could effect this change by simply having a tax on unauthorized procreation, those who have unauthorized children have their income tax increased by 10% on all income, whether normally taxable or not, for 18 years for the first child and an additional 5% per child thereafter.

It's not devistating, but it's sound economics and enough to engineer society which works on means, not on the statistical outliers.

I doubt the situation was that dire, it was simply that those with shorter beaks were more adventageous, thus they were the ones who tended to survive and tended to dominate the gene pool. It may very well have happened in a short period of time, but for a minor change like that a short period of time is all that is needed. Consider today the presence of white people, the pigment producing proteins are dominate yet in a relatively short period of time in certain populations the non-pigment producing proteins came to be predominate. Now I do not know if this lack of pigment, in and of itself, was somehow evolutionarily beneficial or if it was an accidental part of a set of alleles beneficial to survival in the different enviroments to the north, but in either case it, though a recessive trait, came to be predominate in a very short period of time.

When pigment lightens and stays lightened you are an albino. And no, that will never be the dominant charcteristic in society. Amongst american indians there are lighter and darker skinned varieties. A darker skinned group will be in one area and a lighter skinned group will be in another. It has to do with climate. Skin pigment or melanin is based upon gentics AND enviroment. So if you need more pigment/melanin then you have darker skin. But a person can also have a high amount of melanin and pigmint but have lighter skin. I can go out in the sun and barely get a tan or burn over the course of hours and yet have the "same" level of external shade to my skin as another person that will burn immediately. The biological make up of a person is what causes skin to be the color it is but a large portion is also dependant upon the enviroment you live in. And with people moving all the time the waters are further muddied.

Well, I guess the few who are willing to live like that can escape the financial implications for a time, at least until the IRS catches up with them. Of course, I'm not suggesting forced sterilization insofar as we arrest people and sterilize them by force. Rather, I believe that we could effect this change by simply having a tax on unauthorized procreation, those who have unauthorized children have their income tax increased by 10% on all income, whether normally taxable or not, for 18 years for the first child and an additional 5% per child thereafter.

It's not devistating, but it's sound economics and enough to engineer society which works on means, not on the statistical outliers.

You would have to take away the abilty to have exemptions from your W-2. People can have as many exemptions as they want on their record and then pay their taxes at the end of the year.

No matter your method, it will always end up as rounding people up and sterlizing them. And then why bother placing them back out in society? It would just be easier altogether to round them up and eliminate them. If a person is not worthy of procreation, why should they be worthy of life at all?

Unless it is physically forced it will never work. If a system of sterlization is put into effect it would have to be hands on. You would have to get your hands dirty so to speak.

But if say 20% of the population is deemed up worthy of procreation and the average couple has two children. You have 100 couples, 20 are deemed unable to have children. That is a decrease in humanity of 40. So then you would have to develop a hierarchy of fertility. The higher the IQ the more children you are mandated to have so that you will increase the IQ of the population at large. So a couple with an averaged IQ over 140 would need to have more than two children so that their stronger IQ genetics are predominant in society. So if you test everyone it would cut both ways. If you have a high IQ you would have no choice but to procreate or donate so that you contribute to societal IQs, if you have lower IQ's you couldn't have children. If you wanted to at least maintain current populations you would have to make up for the 20% reduction in population for several generations.

But if you only allowed two children per couple you would have to have quotas of males and females. Otherwise you would have the problem they do in China-many little kings, few queens. So you would have to have a 50/50 male female quotient. And then when you IQ test in childhood/early adulthood you should pair up people according to their IQ's. The highest together and the lowest together to weed out undesireables. Then marriage would be culturally mandated and overseen for the wellness of society. Then eventually you would no longer need to test for IQ levels. You would only allow the govermentally matched couples with higher IQ's to have children or marry at all. Finacially it makes more sense just to disallow all people with low IQ's marraige. Why spend all the money to sterlize when you can just keep them from sex and marriage. Then premarital sex would have to be a criminal offense to keep out undesireables from breeding. And homosexuality amongst desireables would have to be criminal too, since it isn't contributing to the gene pool.

Hey! I know what would work even better for your plan! When a child is tested as lower IQ, then we give them a virus or vaccine that causes them to be homosexual. Homosexual means no preocreation and the problem of less desireable people procreating is eliminated!

You would have to take away the abilty to have exemptions from your W-2. People can have as many exemptions as they want on their record and then pay their taxes at the end of the year.

No, you don't you can require the entire tax to be due at the end of the year, if it's not used you can use the current methods of the IRS to collect it. And even as it is, if you don't pay a high enough percentage of your tax before the year's end there's a penalty attached.

No matter your method, it will always end up as rounding people up and sterlizing them. And then why bother placing them back out in society? It would just be easier altogether to round them up and eliminate them. If a person is not worthy of procreation, why should they be worthy of life at all?

No, you're giving the feedom to determine their own method of birth control, be it sterilization, condoms, pills, abortion, etc. There is still freedom in personal activity and freedom relative to oneself, one simply does not have a certain freedom relative to other persons, that is to say the freedom to create other persons. In fact, they can even technically reproduce if they wish, they would simply have to pay a higher tax (or be eligible for fewer government welfare benefits) to pay for the damage they cause to society.

Unless it is physically forced it will never work. If a system of sterlization is put into effect it would have to be hands on. You would have to get your hands dirty so to speak.

But if say 20% of the population is deemed up worthy of procreation and the average couple has two children. You have 100 couples, 20 are deemed unable to have children. That is a decrease in humanity of 40. So then you would have to develop a hierarchy of fertility. The higher the IQ the more children you are mandated to have so that you will increase the IQ of the population at large. So a couple with an averaged IQ over 140 would need to have more than two children so that their stronger IQ genetics are predominant in society. So if you test everyone it would cut both ways. If you have a high IQ you would have no choice but to procreate or donate so that you contribute to societal IQs, if you have lower IQ's you couldn't have children. If you wanted to at least maintain current populations you would have to make up for the 20% reduction in population for several generations.

You forget that I believe overpopulation to be a problem, I'd quite like to see your population drop by 70% over the next few hundred years. Though we might be able to make use of a sliding scale based on IQ to place limits on how many children a couple may have, but I see no reason to mandate procreation considering the severe overpopulation we are confronted with. Furthermore, restricting procreation only limits the rights an individual has over another person, this is far more acceptable than mandating procreation which violates the rights one have over oneself.

But if you only allowed two children per couple you would have to have quotas of males and females. Otherwise you would have the problem they do in China-many little kings, few queens. So you would have to have a 50/50 male female quotient. And then when you IQ test in childhood/early adulthood you should pair up people according to their IQ's. The highest together and the lowest together to weed out undesireables. Then marriage would be culturally mandated and overseen for the wellness of society. Then eventually you would no longer need to test for IQ levels. You would only allow the govermentally matched couples with higher IQ's to have children or marry at all. Finacially it makes more sense just to disallow all people with low IQ's marraige. Why spend all the money to sterlize when you can just keep them from sex and marriage. Then premarital sex would have to be a criminal offense to keep out undesireables from breeding. And homosexuality amongst desireables would have to be criminal too, since it isn't contributing to the gene pool.

Hey! I know what would work even better for your plan! When a child is tested as lower IQ, then we give them a virus or vaccine that causes them to be homosexual. Homosexual means no preocreation and the problem of less desireable people procreating is eliminated!

You could create algorithms which give maximum reproduction allowed for a couple by taking the IQ of both into account; for instance, if you have two spouses with an IQ of 140 there would be no restriction on reproduction, but if you had one spouse with an IQ of 140 and the other an IQ of 90 they could be limited to, say, 2 children. Considering our culture I doubt we have to worry as much about the sex ratio as China does, but if it does become a problem we can solve the problem the same way China is, giving economic incentive to have children of the under-represented sex.

If we can determine a way to change someone's sexuality through some sort of gene therapy it could certainly be presented to them as a possibility and they could choose freely though I see no reason to mandate it, I think the moderate economic policies I have presented would be more than adequate.

But then if birth control methods fail (believe me, they all fail) and you concieve a child a family would be forced into abortion or an 18 year tax. So then you are advocating forced abortion. If you can't afford the tax for the next 18 years the only choice is to end the childs life. Unless of course your "system" would have adoption and care in place for these children that are "undesireable." But then, who would want to have a child that isn't allowed to procreate when you can just give birth to the superhuman yourself? If you are able to have children that are allowed to have children, then why take on a sterlized one?

The IRS is not capable of forcing anyone to pay them anything. They can deduct from paychecks automatically, but if you have enough exemptions then that can't even do that. We are obligated to pay taxes teh end of each year, we are not forced to do so. And thru the court system you can stop the IRS from dedusting SS and federal taxes. My parents have a good number of friends that have done so.

The IRS would have to increase their workforce considerably to force anyone to pay anything. And that would cost more money, sapping this already "overpopulated" and failing world.

And you speak of GLOBAL overpopulation, so the only way to help that is to institute your "plan" globally, not within the US. Otherwise you efforts would be thwarted by other countries having low IQ babies left and right.

And while you think you are the devils advocate, you are no more than a man talking about theories and ideas without anything behind them. It is obvious you aren't DOING anything to implement or even start to implement your ideas. It is all play and talk for you. All you are doing is throwing out ideas trying to get a rise out of me. You won't get it, I don't care what you think. You don't have anything to back up any of your assertations about IQ or overpopulation. While resources may run low in some areas while population surges, there are enough places that have space and resources to spare so that everyone has more than enough. If an area is overpopulated then move to another.

And I am not the biggest fan of humanity either. I have always said that if there were no moral absolutes that I would a a heinous murderess. But there are moral absolutes, so there is no point pretneding that there are not. If you want to have these viewpoints abandon all the things that keep you from taking them to their end result. Otherwise you are intellectually dishonest and incomplete in your thoughts. Thoughts are nothing. Actions are everything. If you truly believed all this you would do something. And since you merely a single man staying up until 6am discussing theories, it is obvious that you only hold those views for shock value. I am not shocked. I am amused. But at this point, the amusement is over.

But then if birth control methods fail (believe me, they all fail) and you concieve a child a family would be forced into abortion or an 18 year tax. So then you are advocating forced abortion. If you can't afford the tax for the next 18 years the only choice is to end the childs life. Unless of course your "system" would have adoption and care in place for these children that are "undesireable." But then, who would want to have a child that isn't allowed to procreate when you can just give birth to the superhuman yourself? If you are able to have children that are allowed to have children, then why take on a sterlized one?

No one is forced to have an abortion, but the alternative is a tax increase. Perhaps this would encourage those who for some reason or another object to abortion to use a more permanente birth control method. Abortion is not 'forced', but it would certainly be encouraged in this situation.

Quote

The IRS is not capable of forcing anyone to pay them anything. They can deduct from paychecks automatically, but if you have enough exemptions then that can't even do that. We are obligated to pay taxes teh end of each year, we are not forced to do so. And thru the court system you can stop the IRS from dedusting SS and federal taxes. My parents have a good number of friends that have done so.

The IRS is significantly powerful for this; the vast majority of people don't want their wages garnished and liens placed on their house, there may be a VERY small minority that doesn't care, but there arn't enough such people to undermine the policy.

The IRS would have to increase their workforce considerably to force anyone to pay anything. And that would cost more money, sapping this already "overpopulated" and failing world.

The IRS does a fine job of enforcing tax code right now, the few difficulities are hardly a problem in the grand scheme of things. This policy I have presented would simply be another change in the tax code which could be handled as easily as the current tax system is.

Quote

And you speak of GLOBAL overpopulation, so the only way to help that is to institute your "plan" globally, not within the US. Otherwise you efforts would be thwarted by other countries having low IQ babies left and right.

Well, I've long been an adherent to the 'America First' philosophy, other countries can continue to keep their IQ down, if we increase ours we will gain an additional edge over the rest of the world -- and there's nothing wrong with that.

Quote

And while you think you are the devils advocate, you are no more than a man talking about theories and ideas without anything behind them. It is obvious you aren't DOING anything to implement or even start to implement your ideas. It is all play and talk for you. All you are doing is throwing out ideas trying to get a rise out of me. You won't get it, I don't care what you think. You don't have anything to back up any of your assertations about IQ or overpopulation. While resources may run low in some areas while population surges, there are enough places that have space and resources to spare so that everyone has more than enough. If an area is overpopulated then move to another.

This is an internet forum? What exactly do you suggest? Of course, there are lobbyist groups out there arguing for this very thing and the genetics is refer to is supported by scientific research.

As for me beng the devil's advocate, I'm just one of many, look around and I'm sure you can find several in your personal life.

Quote

And I am not the biggest fan of humanity either. I have always said that if there were no moral absolutes that I would a a heinous murderess. But there are moral absolutes, so there is no point pretneding that there are not. If you want to have these viewpoints abandon all the things that keep you from taking them to their end result. Otherwise you are intellectually dishonest and incomplete in your thoughts. Thoughts are nothing. Actions are everything. If you truly believed all this you would do something. And since you merely a single man staying up until 6am discussing theories, it is obvious that you only hold those views for shock value. I am not shocked. I am amused. But at this point, the amusement is over.

You may not be shocked, but there's a good chance someone reading this is, the forum moderater even thought what I was saying was scandalous enough to chime in and give a disclaimer.